This petition under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the first and sixth accused in C.C. No.281 of 2006 on the file of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - IV, Kozhikode. The delation against the first petitioner is that of commission of offence under S.3(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') and that against the 2nd petitioner is one of commission of offences under Sections 4(1) and 5(1) (d) of the Act. On 21.6.2006 the Circle Inspector of Police, Kozhikode Town made a raid on house No. 1/2890, 'Parag', taken on rent by the first petitioner, whereon 'Ashwaradha Ayurveda Hospital and Panchakarma Centre' are housed and found it as a home for harlotry. The accusation is that respondents 2 and 3 are conducting prostitution there. All the accused except the first petitioner/first accused were arrested from there. Consequently, crime No. 215/2006 of Nadakkavu Police station was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Nadakkavu. After completing investigation, Annexure A charge sheet was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court IV, Kozhikode by the Circle Inspector of Police, Nadakkavu.

2. The petitioners seek for quashment of Annexure A charge sheet in crime No. 215/2006 of Nadakkavu Police Station on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court IV Kozhikode, taken on its file as C.C.No.281/2006 on manifold grounds. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of this Court reported in Sinu Sainudheen v. Sub Inspector of Police (2002 (1) KLT 693) and also Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala reported in (2008 (2) KLT 521) to contend that the prosecution against the petitioners is liable to be terminated. The specific contention of the petitioners is that the raid which resulted in the registration of Crime No.215/2006 of Nadakkavu Police Station was conducted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Kozhikode Town and he was not the 'Special Police Officer' in terms of the provisions under S.13(1) of the Act in respect of the area, Nadakkavu. It is contented that the case was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nadakkavu and the investigation was conducted and the charge was laid by the Circle Inspector of Police, Nadakkavu. The above decisions were relied on to contend that inasmuch as the raid was not conducted by the Special Police Officer appointed for the area concerned viz., Nadakkavu, under S.13(1) of the Act no successful prosecution could be conducted in this case based on the raid conducted by the C.I. of police, Kozhikode.

3. Section 13(1) of the Act reads thus:-

“There shall be for each area to be specified by the State Government in this behalf a special police officer appointed by or on behalf of that Government for dealing with offences under this Act in that area.”

Section 2(1) of the Act defines “Special Police Officer” to mean a police officer appointed by or on behalf of the State Government to be in charge of police duties within a specified area for the purpose of the Act.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in exercise of the power under S.13 of the Act, Government of Kerala have issued a notification under G.O. (Ms) 56/2002/Home dated 24.4.2002 in Kerala Gazette extraordinary No.625 dated 10.5.2002, S.R.O. No.344/2002, appointing Special Police Officers under S.13(1) of the Act. The relevant portions of the said notification have been extracted in Radhakrishhan's case (supra). The said G.O. dated 24.4.2002 would reveal that, in exercise of power conferred by S.13(1)of the Act, Government of Kerala have appointed Circle Inspector of Police attached to the police stations specifically named thereunder, in the State, 'as Special Police Officers' for dealing with the offences under the Act, within their respective area of jurisdiction. Entry 153 in the said order pertains to the area falling under Nadakkavu Police Station and Entry 149 therein pertains to Kozhikode T